Assessing research participants' perceptions of their clinical research experiences

Rhonda G. Kost, Laura M. Lee, Jennifer Yessis, Barry S. Coller, David K. Henderson, Nancy Needler, Ann Dozier, Jean Larson, Shelley Britt, Sandra Alfano, Gina D'Agostino, Cynthia Hahn, Kevin Tracey, Andrea Saltzman, Enrico Cagliero, Mollie Jenckes, Daniel E Ford, Susan Margatic

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: Participants' perceptions of their research experiences provide valuable measures of ethical treatment, yet no validated instruments exist to measure these experiences. We conducted focus groups of research participants and professionals as the initial step in developing a validated instrument. Methods: Research participants enrolled in 12 focus groups, consisting of: (1) individuals with disorders undergoing interventions; (2) in natural history studies; or (3) healthy volunteers. Research professionals participated in six separate groups of: (1) institutional review board members, ethicists, and Research Subject Advocates; (2) research nurses/coordinators; or (3) investigators. Focus groups used standard methodologies. Results: Eighty-five participants and 29 professionals enrolled at eight academic centers. Altruism and personal relevance of the research were commonly identified motivators; financial compensation was less commonly mentioned. Participants were satisfied with informed consent processes but disappointed if not provided test results, or study outcomes. Positive relationships with research teams were valued highly. Research professionals were concerned about risks, undue influence, and informed consent. Conclusions: Participants join studies for varied, complex reasons, notably altruism and personal relevance. They value staff relationships, health gains, new knowledge, and compensation, and expect professionalism and good organization. On the basis of these insights, we propose specific actions to enhance participant recruitment, retention, and satisfaction.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)403-413
Number of pages11
JournalClinical and Translational Science
Volume4
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2011

Fingerprint

Research
Focus Groups
Altruism
Informed Consent
Compensation and Redress
Ethicists
Research Subjects
Research Ethics Committees
Natural History
Healthy Volunteers
Nurses
Research Personnel
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Organizations
Health
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Human subjects protection
  • Motivation
  • Participant perceptions
  • Research ethics
  • Research participants

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Neuroscience(all)
  • Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics(all)

Cite this

Kost, R. G., Lee, L. M., Yessis, J., Coller, B. S., Henderson, D. K., Needler, N., ... Margatic, S. (2011). Assessing research participants' perceptions of their clinical research experiences. Clinical and Translational Science, 4(6), 403-413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00349.x

Assessing research participants' perceptions of their clinical research experiences. / Kost, Rhonda G.; Lee, Laura M.; Yessis, Jennifer; Coller, Barry S.; Henderson, David K.; Needler, Nancy; Dozier, Ann; Larson, Jean; Britt, Shelley; Alfano, Sandra; D'Agostino, Gina; Hahn, Cynthia; Tracey, Kevin; Saltzman, Andrea; Cagliero, Enrico; Jenckes, Mollie; Ford, Daniel E; Margatic, Susan.

In: Clinical and Translational Science, Vol. 4, No. 6, 12.2011, p. 403-413.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kost, RG, Lee, LM, Yessis, J, Coller, BS, Henderson, DK, Needler, N, Dozier, A, Larson, J, Britt, S, Alfano, S, D'Agostino, G, Hahn, C, Tracey, K, Saltzman, A, Cagliero, E, Jenckes, M, Ford, DE & Margatic, S 2011, 'Assessing research participants' perceptions of their clinical research experiences', Clinical and Translational Science, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 403-413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00349.x
Kost, Rhonda G. ; Lee, Laura M. ; Yessis, Jennifer ; Coller, Barry S. ; Henderson, David K. ; Needler, Nancy ; Dozier, Ann ; Larson, Jean ; Britt, Shelley ; Alfano, Sandra ; D'Agostino, Gina ; Hahn, Cynthia ; Tracey, Kevin ; Saltzman, Andrea ; Cagliero, Enrico ; Jenckes, Mollie ; Ford, Daniel E ; Margatic, Susan. / Assessing research participants' perceptions of their clinical research experiences. In: Clinical and Translational Science. 2011 ; Vol. 4, No. 6. pp. 403-413.
@article{de182e40811148d58e6721787e911a15,
title = "Assessing research participants' perceptions of their clinical research experiences",
abstract = "Introduction: Participants' perceptions of their research experiences provide valuable measures of ethical treatment, yet no validated instruments exist to measure these experiences. We conducted focus groups of research participants and professionals as the initial step in developing a validated instrument. Methods: Research participants enrolled in 12 focus groups, consisting of: (1) individuals with disorders undergoing interventions; (2) in natural history studies; or (3) healthy volunteers. Research professionals participated in six separate groups of: (1) institutional review board members, ethicists, and Research Subject Advocates; (2) research nurses/coordinators; or (3) investigators. Focus groups used standard methodologies. Results: Eighty-five participants and 29 professionals enrolled at eight academic centers. Altruism and personal relevance of the research were commonly identified motivators; financial compensation was less commonly mentioned. Participants were satisfied with informed consent processes but disappointed if not provided test results, or study outcomes. Positive relationships with research teams were valued highly. Research professionals were concerned about risks, undue influence, and informed consent. Conclusions: Participants join studies for varied, complex reasons, notably altruism and personal relevance. They value staff relationships, health gains, new knowledge, and compensation, and expect professionalism and good organization. On the basis of these insights, we propose specific actions to enhance participant recruitment, retention, and satisfaction.",
keywords = "Human subjects protection, Motivation, Participant perceptions, Research ethics, Research participants",
author = "Kost, {Rhonda G.} and Lee, {Laura M.} and Jennifer Yessis and Coller, {Barry S.} and Henderson, {David K.} and Nancy Needler and Ann Dozier and Jean Larson and Shelley Britt and Sandra Alfano and Gina D'Agostino and Cynthia Hahn and Kevin Tracey and Andrea Saltzman and Enrico Cagliero and Mollie Jenckes and Ford, {Daniel E} and Susan Margatic",
year = "2011",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00349.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "403--413",
journal = "Clinical and Translational Science",
issn = "1752-8054",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing research participants' perceptions of their clinical research experiences

AU - Kost, Rhonda G.

AU - Lee, Laura M.

AU - Yessis, Jennifer

AU - Coller, Barry S.

AU - Henderson, David K.

AU - Needler, Nancy

AU - Dozier, Ann

AU - Larson, Jean

AU - Britt, Shelley

AU - Alfano, Sandra

AU - D'Agostino, Gina

AU - Hahn, Cynthia

AU - Tracey, Kevin

AU - Saltzman, Andrea

AU - Cagliero, Enrico

AU - Jenckes, Mollie

AU - Ford, Daniel E

AU - Margatic, Susan

PY - 2011/12

Y1 - 2011/12

N2 - Introduction: Participants' perceptions of their research experiences provide valuable measures of ethical treatment, yet no validated instruments exist to measure these experiences. We conducted focus groups of research participants and professionals as the initial step in developing a validated instrument. Methods: Research participants enrolled in 12 focus groups, consisting of: (1) individuals with disorders undergoing interventions; (2) in natural history studies; or (3) healthy volunteers. Research professionals participated in six separate groups of: (1) institutional review board members, ethicists, and Research Subject Advocates; (2) research nurses/coordinators; or (3) investigators. Focus groups used standard methodologies. Results: Eighty-five participants and 29 professionals enrolled at eight academic centers. Altruism and personal relevance of the research were commonly identified motivators; financial compensation was less commonly mentioned. Participants were satisfied with informed consent processes but disappointed if not provided test results, or study outcomes. Positive relationships with research teams were valued highly. Research professionals were concerned about risks, undue influence, and informed consent. Conclusions: Participants join studies for varied, complex reasons, notably altruism and personal relevance. They value staff relationships, health gains, new knowledge, and compensation, and expect professionalism and good organization. On the basis of these insights, we propose specific actions to enhance participant recruitment, retention, and satisfaction.

AB - Introduction: Participants' perceptions of their research experiences provide valuable measures of ethical treatment, yet no validated instruments exist to measure these experiences. We conducted focus groups of research participants and professionals as the initial step in developing a validated instrument. Methods: Research participants enrolled in 12 focus groups, consisting of: (1) individuals with disorders undergoing interventions; (2) in natural history studies; or (3) healthy volunteers. Research professionals participated in six separate groups of: (1) institutional review board members, ethicists, and Research Subject Advocates; (2) research nurses/coordinators; or (3) investigators. Focus groups used standard methodologies. Results: Eighty-five participants and 29 professionals enrolled at eight academic centers. Altruism and personal relevance of the research were commonly identified motivators; financial compensation was less commonly mentioned. Participants were satisfied with informed consent processes but disappointed if not provided test results, or study outcomes. Positive relationships with research teams were valued highly. Research professionals were concerned about risks, undue influence, and informed consent. Conclusions: Participants join studies for varied, complex reasons, notably altruism and personal relevance. They value staff relationships, health gains, new knowledge, and compensation, and expect professionalism and good organization. On the basis of these insights, we propose specific actions to enhance participant recruitment, retention, and satisfaction.

KW - Human subjects protection

KW - Motivation

KW - Participant perceptions

KW - Research ethics

KW - Research participants

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855194338&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84855194338&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00349.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00349.x

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 403

EP - 413

JO - Clinical and Translational Science

JF - Clinical and Translational Science

SN - 1752-8054

IS - 6

ER -